j~nAna and bhakti

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Comments: It seems that you are diverting the topic of

discussion from "j~nAna and bhakti" to advaita/dwaita and other also to

unrelated topics. This month's topic is supposed to be focused on the subject

matter. Sri Gummuluruji and Sunderji may like to send a reminder to members to

focus their discussions on the topic under discussion.

 

 

Dear Nair,

>From your responses to me and others, I think I am beginning to get

>what you are trying to say. But certain statements still baffle me.

 

I am glad you are beginning to get what I am trying to say.

>OK. I don't want you to commit on this. But you can certainly quote

>Sri VedavyAsa if he has endorsed the definition of brahma-jignyAsa

>stated by you above as vEda-vichAra meaning enquiry into entire

>Veda

 

If you think learning shAstra is such two line answers, how is it different

from the 4-line answers of 'mahAvAkya-jignAsA' ?

>Can you quote the relevant Vedic statement please for the benefit of

>all?

 

Sure, whatever little I know, I will gladly share it with all.

 

To get an answer to your question please study || OM sarva vEdAnta pratyayam OM

|| III.3.1

 

It is coming from Veda. You have not paid attention to my earlier emails.

"sarvE vEdAh yat padam Amananti" of the kaTopanishat.

 

Under the same adhikaraNa, look under ||OM Darshayati cha OM || III.3.4

Contemplate on why Sri Adi ShankarAcharya in his sootra-bhAshya on iii.3.4

quotes this kaTopanishat as well as AitarEya-AraNyaka

 

etam hyEva bahvrcA mahatyukte mImAmsantE | etam agnAvadhvaryava etam mahAvrate

chandOgAha.

(Brahman is the direct object of all brahnches of Veda - rig, yajus and sAma,

even in sacrificial rites performed such as mahAvrata,

even in the case of numerous vidyAs taught in upanishats )

>That is a non-situation from the vyAvahArikA

>sense. If Brahman, Veda, jignyAsA are all infinite, then the logical

>conclusion would be Brahman = Veda = jignyAsa, i.e. all three are one

>without a second.

 

Not necessarily. Oh boy !. Where do I begin?

 

shAstra consists of nirnEya and nirNAyaka. NirnEya consists of shruti and

smriti. NirnAyaka are the brahma-sootras.

NirNeya does not by itself help knowledge, because it has apparent

contradictions. It is therefore aparA, inferior. i.e, it is not vidyA (

philosophy). But these two must not be taken to be seperate. Through the

process of jignyAsA, nirNAyaka becomes merged with nirNEya. In this

circumstance, nirNeya transcends its nirNEya character, becomes one with

nirNAyaka and presents its true meaning, Brahman. NirnAyaka is thus innate in

nirNEya. Sootra is its expression. JignyAsA is its form.

 

By equating them as Brahman = Veda = jignyAsa, you are saying

"green color = my eye = vision"

 

What is that which is above all that is empirical and which is therefore

expounded by the Shruti?. To consider this problem is the process of jignyAsA

i.,e Brahma-mImAmsA. The meaning of jignyAsA in this connection cannot

therefore be fixed according to a thinker's will. Brahman is what is revealed

by the knowledge which is generated by vEda-vichAra-jignyAsa.

 

God is called "vEdaika-vEdya". We should not reduce it to just a name such as

"devadatta".

 

vyAvahArika is used to explain away what is given. Neither SriKrishna in

the Geetha nor Sri VedavyAsa use it in the sootras to explain what is given

in the empirical world.

 

So, if you make 'aham brahmAsmi' as pAramArthika, then make rest of the

upanishat such as 'antaryAmee-brAhmaNa' also as pAramArthika and follow

VedavyAsa to do samanvaya on the entire Veda.

 

If you make, 'aham brahmAsmi' as vyAvahArika, then make rest of the upanishat

also as vyAvahArika, and ignore the entire upanishats, like the buddhists do.

>This obviously means you haven't yourself done the entire 12-year

>study of vedas. How can one who hasn't studied a subject completely

>so fervently recommend it to others? (No personal offence meant

>here.)

 

Any question raised should lead to a further understanding of

shAstra. Then only it serves its purpose. is'nt it?.

 

As you know, Sri VedavyAsa divided and classifed vEda into four branches.

 

1. Rig into 24 branches

2. Yajus into 101 branches

3. sAma into 1000 branches

4. atharva into 20 branches

 

But what is available today is only 13 branches today.

 

When vedas specified 12 years of vedic study during vedic times, how

many were available, I can not answer that question.

 

I will answer your questions with the little knowledge I have only if there is

an interest to study shAstra further.

 

I will quote here what Sri Ramachandran, the moderator of this list has said

about what I should do and what I should not do :

>I don't want a scholarly person like you to engage in news-reporter

>style conversations! The list and you can benefit better if you share

>your wisdom with focus and true dedication to the Lord.

 

Neither me nor the moderators of this list are interested in engaging in

anything that is outside of furthering our knowledge of shAstra, as dedication

to the Lord.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay-Ji,

 

I am fully with you and the moderators. I don't think there is any

benefit coming out of all this, at least for me. You have only

skirted issues with terminology without answering the very simple

questions I asked. As such, I would also like to conlude that I have

said whatever I can at the present juncture.

 

PraNAms,

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________________

 

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

>

> Neither me nor the moderators of this list are interested in

engaging in

> anything that is outside of furthering our knowledge of shAstra, as

dedication

> to the Lord.

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

At the ultimate, the jnAna and bhakti lead to the same

reality, the AtmajnAna. But the approaches are different,

or appear to be different. In the route of bhakti or devotion,

meditation or upAsana of nirguNa brahman is much more difficult

than the upAsana of saguNa brahman because, in the latter case,

the mind can latch on to something. But any upAsana, even the

nirguNabrahma-upAsana is easier than the jnAna mArga. JnAna-mArga

is the path favoured by the upanishads. The jnAna-mArga is the

path of negation while the bhakti-mArga is the path of

affirmation.

 

The kaTha upanishad verse 1.iii.13 is presented here as an

example of the jnAna-mArga. It says:

 

Yacchet vAk manasI prAjnaH tat yacchet jnAna Atmani

jnAnam Atmani mahati niyacchet tat yacchet shAnta Atmani

 

The wise man should merge his speech in the mind, and his

mind in the intellect; he should merge his intellect in the

cosmic mind, the HiraNyagarbha, and the cosmic mind in the

tranquil SELF (Atman).

 

vAk, although refers to the organ of speech here stands for

all sense organs. Lord Yama (in teaching nAciketa) exhorts

in this verse "merge all sense organs in the manas, the

manas in the buddhi, buddhi in the cosmic mind and the cosmic

mind in the shAnti Atman, the tranquil, serene, calm SELF.

 

Atman is a mystery hidden in the heart. It follows then that

the method of its investigation and realization is through

discipline, purification and control of man's inner life.

 

Swami VivekAnanda says in the "Free soul" [Complete works,

III) "It is very hard to come to jnAna. It is for the bravest

and most daring, who dare to smash all idols, not only

intellectual, but in the senses....".

 

kaTha upanishad, in a latter continuation, says in verse

2.i.1 that it takes a dhIra, the most heroic of men, to be

able to follow the path of jnAna, the walk on a razor's edge.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

At the ultimate, the jnAna and bhakti lead to the same

reality, the AtmajnAna. But the approaches are different,

or appear to be different. In the route of bhakti or devotion,

meditation or upAsana of nirguNa brahman is much more difficult

than the upAsana of saguNa brahman because, in the latter case,

the mind can latch on to something. But any upAsana, even the

nirguNabrahma-upAsana is easier than the jnAna mArga. JnAna-mArga

is the path favoured by the upanishads. The jnAna-mArga is the

path of negation while the bhakti-mArga is the path of

affirmation.

> praNAm, Hare Krishna

> I am still finding it difficult to reconcile these two mArgas. How can

two different approaches can lead us to the same goal?? Bhakti word itself

implies duality (bhakta-bhakti-bhagavan), so through bhakti mArga one can

approach the absolute reality thinking that it/she/he is separate from him

& obviously his ultimate realisation also ends in duality. Moreover, if we

think jnAna=karma=bhakti as Sri Ramachandra prabhuji said then are we not

endorsing the view of karma-gnAna samuchhaya vAda which sri shankara

refuted in his works...

> Whereas in gnAna mArga & to attain gnAna, as Sri Sadananda prabhuji said

in one of his mails, we cannot will it & achieve it as an accomplishment,

since V R already THAT & this gnAna is purely vastu tantra. All these

upasana, bhakti & karma yoga is just to purify our mind (chitta shudyarthe)

& prepare the mind for the ultimate realisation to happen on its own &

that is jnAna.

> Apart from this, I was told that bhakti & upasana are for the manda &

madhyama adhikAris who are not able to realise nirguna parabrahman. How

far it is fair on our part to categorize the bhakti into advaita bhakti,

dvaita bhakti & gnAna mishrita bhakti etc.etc. for our comforts when

shankara says gnAna & ONLY gnAna is the means of realistion. Can learned

members clarify my doubts pls.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 7 May 2003 bhaskar.yr wrote:

> praNAm, Hare Krishna

>

> I am still finding it difficult to reconcile these two mArgas. How can

> two different approaches can lead us to the same goal?? Bhakti word itself

> implies duality (bhakta-bhakti-bhagavan), so through bhakti mArga one can

> approach the absolute reality thinking that it/she/he is separate from him

> & obviously his ultimate realisation also ends in duality. Moreover, if we

> think jnAna=karma=bhakti as Sri Ramachandra prabhuji said then are we not

> endorsing the view of karma-gnAna samuchhaya vAda which sri shankara

> refuted in his works...

>

> Whereas in gnAna mArga & to attain gnAna, as Sri Sadananda prabhuji said

> in one of his mails, we cannot will it & achieve it as an accomplishment,

> since V R already THAT & this gnAna is purely vastu tantra. All these

> upasana, bhakti & karma yoga is just to purify our mind (chitta shudyarthe)

> & prepare the mind for the ultimate realisation to happen on its own &

> that is jnAna.

>

> Apart from this, I was told that bhakti & upasana are for the manda &

> madhyama adhikAris who are not able to realise nirguna parabrahman. How

> far it is fair on our part to categorize the bhakti into advaita bhakti,

> dvaita bhakti & gnAna mishrita bhakti etc.etc. for our comforts when

> shankara says gnAna & ONLY gnAna is the means of realistion. Can learned

> members clarify my doubts pls.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

 

namaste.

 

I am extremely glad that this question is raised. I was

hoping this question will come up, to draw more people

into the discussion.

 

My understanding on this is like this:

 

1. jnAna and jnAna alone is the means of realization.

There is only one way to attain this jnAnam. That is

by shravaNam, mananam, nidhidhyAsanam, after having

the necassary qualifications.

 

2. sAdhana leads to cittashuddhi only and the pure heart

is the perfect ripened ground for SELF to present Itself.

Bhakti is a form of sAdhana only.

 

3. Bhakti, although it has its more visible appearance in

dvaita, graduates itself and reaches its highest state

in advaita. Bhakti ranges from idol worship to svAtnma-

tattvAnusandhAnam. All is bhakti. svAtma-tattvAnusandhAnam

is, or leads to, jnAnam.

 

4. "jnAna-mArga" also has its gradation from kutarka (idle

debate) to intellectual knowledge to nidhidhyAsanam.

Turning the sense organs inward and having that visualization

or realization of the inner SELF that pervades everything

is the highest form of jnAnam.

 

5. The question is asked: How can two different approaches

lead to the same goal? My answer is: Are there two different

appraoches? The approaches *appear* to be different. If we

take it as a spiritual journey of the sAdhaka, different

paths *appear* to be present to him at a stage of the

spiritual journey. If X is on the so-called jnAna-path,

he/she might have been on what we call bhakti-path in his

previous or future life. We are taking an instantaneous

snapshot of the spiritual journey of all the jIvA-s and

arguing whether all at this juncture should take the

same path. Rather than that, if we take a time versus

a particular jIvA picture, we may see a sAdhaka taking

up so-called bhakti now may take up the so-called jnAna

later or vice-versa.

 

6. Ultimate realization cannot end up in duality. Anything

ending up in duality is not the ultimate realization.

 

7. There is no jnAna-karma samuccaya here. It is only jnAna,

that is moksha. Moksha cannot be attained by karma.

 

8. Yes, all these yogA-s are for purity of the heart only.

The realization is by intuition if our heart is pure.

 

 

I would be most grateful for clarifications.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

bhaskar.yr wrote: >>I am still finding it difficult to reconcile

these >>two mArgas. How can two different approaches can >>lead us to the same

goal?? Bhakti word itself

>>implies duality (bhakta-bhakti-bhagavan), so >>through bhakti mArga one can

approach the absolute >>reality thinking that it/she/he is separate from >>him

& obviously his ultimate realisation also ends >>in duality. Whereas in gnAna

mArga & to attain >>gnAna, as Sri Sadananda prabhuji said in one of >>his mails,

we cannot will it & achieve it as an >>accomplishment,since V R already THAT &

this gnAna >>is purely vastu tantra. Dear Divine Souls, For me, Bhakti and

Jnana seem to be the two stages in the journey towards the ultimate realization.

For a worldly preson, his own consciousness seems to be the subject and all the

various names and forms he sees in the world seem to be various different

objects. When such a worldy person enters into the path of Bhakthi, he tries to

merge various objects that appear to him in the world into one single name and

form that he relishes. That is he strives to see his favoutite form in all. So,

once he becomes mature in the path of Bhakthi, there is only subject for him

-his own self and only one object - The God whom he worships. In the next step,

that is Jnana, he tries to merge the subject and the object, that is - he tries

to realize that he, the subject is one with God, the object. Thus, for me,

Bhakti and Jnana seem to be the part of a "two-step" process of realization.

First step - to merge many objects into a single object. Second step - To merge

the subject and the object into One. I request the learned elders to comment

upon this and clarify me. OM!Pardha Saradhi

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

I agree with Gregji's implication that we should stick to the

topic of the month. Not having followed the discussion in complete

detail, I would beg the reader's indulgence to allow me to offer the

following naive suggestion, based on a poor knowledge of bhakti and a

mediocre knowledge of advaita.

 

Without a doubt, bhakti must have the duality of lover and

beloved. To me, this seems inseparable from a 'sweet' and 'warm'

feeling of longing. I know from my superficial reading of Hinduism

that this claim is acceptable, e.g. the tales of Krishna and the

Gopis or of Ramanuja (?) saying that he wanted to taste the sugar and

not be the sugar.

 

On the other hand, the 'Advaitin' experience, in so far as I

can understand it, seems much more 'cosmic' and 'expansive'. I

imagine it as similar to the feeling one might get looking at the

vastness of the stars and feeling 'one with the universe'. Yogananda

described such an experience in his fascinating autobiography, as

have many others. To me, this is a very pure and exalted feeling

that has a quite different 'flavor' than the devotion of bhakti. The

word 'euphoria' is the best that I can think of, to denote a vast

and blissful feeling sometimes symbolized by a bird flying in the

sky. To me, this seems quite different from the 'thicker' and more

'honey-like' feeling of intense longing for the beloved. Or again,

the bhakti feeling may be compared to fire and the advaitin feeling

to the sky. You may laugh at these analogies, but I am only doing

my best to find words for different psychological experiences, such

as I (perhaps mistakenly) imagine them.

 

Furthermore, I believe that the 'flavor' of such experiences

is determined by the mind. If the mind is still dualistic and thinks

in terms of lover and beloved, then the sweeter feeling arises,

corresponding to a somewhat 'lower' state of consciousness. If the

mind thinks in terms of the transcendence of subject and object (in

which case the mind itself is transcended), then the cosmic feeling

arises, corresponding to the 'higher' state of consciousness. At

least, this is what my intuition and imagination tell me, for what

it is worth.

 

Finally, it seems reasonable to me that the devotion of

bhakti would be like a fire that eventually burns away notion of

lover and beloved and leads ultimately to the Advaitin state. So

even those Bhaktis who reject advaita do not know that the fire of

ardent love will eventually burn the mind to ashes!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> > I am still finding it difficult to reconcile these two mArgas.

How can

> two different approaches can lead us to the same goal?? Bhakti word

itself

> implies duality (bhakta-bhakti-bhagavan), so through bhakti mArga

one can

 

Namaste,

 

Bhakti eventually results in the 'union' of the individual energy

with the universal, at that point jnana shines supreme......ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin@Thus, for me, Bhakti and Jnana seem to be the part of

a "two-step" process of realization. First step - to merge many

objects into a single object. Second step - To merge the subject and

the object into One. I request the learned elders to comment upon

this and clarify me. OM!Pardha Saradhi

 

Namaste,

 

At union with Saguna one becomes aware of Nirguna. The merging of all

that is illusory happens at the merging of Saguna or its

energy...ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

> > Whereas in gnAna mArga & to attain gnAna, as Sri Sadananda prabhuji

> said

> > in one of his mails, we cannot will it & achieve it as an

> accomplishment,

> > since V R already THAT & this gnAna is purely vastu tantra. All

> these

> > upasana, bhakti & karma yoga is just to purify our mind (chitta

> shudyarthe)

> > & prepare the mind for the ultimate realisation to happen on its

> own &

> > that is jnAna.

 

I kept myself on the side due to lack of time and I did not read all the

mails on the topic which are overwhelming.

 

My first request is to Jay - please slow down - With all due respects I

must say you are coming with different background - specifically with

dwaita and as I study few of your mails I get the same impression what I

got when I read dwaitin's comments of Advaita. I request you not to

confuse the readers with your misunderstanding of advaitic position. I

may be wrong - but I see clearly you posts are not intended to learn

Advaita but propogate your views. There is no problem in that but this

forum Jay is not the right forum, as I mentioned to you in the past.

 

Here is the deal - you have raised some issues - saakshi j~naana and

means of knowledge etc. Tell us more your version than trying to raise

objections in a subtle way against Advaita. Start with nature of jiiva,

nature of the Lord and nature of moksha and how one achieves that -

means of moksha. Due to the time constraints, although I was tempted to

respond to your mail, I had to refrain myself.

 

Now little bit about j~naana and Bhakti.

 

Krishna says - there are only two paths - karma and j~naana. lokesmin

dwividhaa ..... No mention of Bhakti here. The reason for karma to

become yoga - Iswara has to come in - yat karoti... ' whatever you do,

offer it to me - that cannot be done unless I am a devotee. Hence Bhakti

with karma becomes Karma yoga.

 

ON the same token Bhakti with inquiring mind becomes j~nana yoga. All

are for purification of the mind as Gummaluri just pointed.

 

If 'self-ignorance is the root cause of the problem then self-knowledge

alone removes the self-ignorance - not Brahman knowledge nor Iswara

knowledge not karma. Now if that self knowledge involves learning that

the self is nothing but Brahman - the equation becomes knowledge of the

self as well as the knowledge Brahman - then only 'brahma vit brahma eva

bhavati' - knower of Brahman becomes Brahman - that statement becomes a

valid statement - finite can never become infinite - so jiiva can never

become infinite. But if jiiva thinks he is finite even though he is

infinite - it is not becoming but knowing what one really is. Hence

j`naana becomes only means for moksha. Jay raised the standard bookish

objections - how the limited intelect reaches the infinite. Limited

intellect cannot reach infinite. Hence jay - correct understanding of

adviatic position is required. That is why it is called 'aparoksha

j~naana - it is not mediate knowledge - for that one neads of the right

frame of mind - hence sadhana chatushhTayam emphasized by Shankara. That

is not the means for knowledge but means for purification. Scripture

does not say 'you the limited is unlimited or infinite' It says 'you are

unlimited' - It is the vision of the scriptures that contradicts my day

to day experience - just as sun raise and sun set - a day to day

experince is contracted by shastric statement that there is no sun raise

or sun set. My experince and view of my self becomes a notion in

contrast to scripture's vision of myself. Teaching is to unreaval that -

for that, faith in the teacher and shastra-s is needed. That is also

bhakti in the form for shraddha - shraddhaavan labhate j~naanam.

 

Hence Shankara says:

na yogena na saakhyena karanaa no na vidyayaa

brahmaatmaikatva bodhena mokshaH sindhyati na anyathaa|

 

neither by yoga, nor by sankhya nor by karma not by knowledge - as that

is Iswara etc - one can gain moksha - only by realizing the truth by the

teaching of the identity of brahma and the self one gains liberation -by

no other means.

 

That is adviatic position. I have explained in last post 'tat tvam asi'

statement - it involves immediate not mediate knowledge. Therefore all

paths have no meaning in terms of the absolute - they are means only to

purify the mind, which is required in order for the teaching to sink in.

 

 

I wish I had more time to discuss in detail the nature of Bhkati and

Bhaktas - Krishna declares ultimately - of all the four bhakta-s

j`naani is the supreme and of all the means there is nothing compared to

j`naanam - na hi j~naanena sdRisham pavitram iha vidyate. Sorry I have

to rush but if I find time I will respond to the posts.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri SadAnanda,

>If 'self-ignorance is the root cause of the problem then self-knowledge

>alone removes the self-ignorance - not Brahman knowledge nor Iswara

>knowledge not karma. Now if that self knowledge involves learning that

 

One question arises.

 

Right from birth, everyone has knowledge about themselves. No special

sAdhana is needed for it. It is only VedAnta that teaches about Brahman.

Advaita-vEdAnta may teach Identity and Dvaita-vEdAnta may teach non-Identity

between the two. But in either case, it is only through VedAnta that one comes

to know about Brahman. Thus Brahman-knowledge is needed.

 

This being the case, if there is only self-knowledge and no vEdAnta ( therefore

no Brahman knowledge) how do you say self-ignorance is removed?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

> Dear Sri SadAnanda,

>

> >If 'self-ignorance is the root cause of the problem then self-

knowledge

> >alone removes the self-ignorance - not Brahman knowledge nor Iswara

> >knowledge not karma. Now if that self knowledge involves learning

that

>

> One question arises.

>

> Right from birth, everyone has knowledge about themselves. No

special

> sAdhana is needed for it. It is only VedAnta that teaches about

Brahman.

> Advaita-vEdAnta may teach Identity and Dvaita-vEdAnta may teach non-

Identity between the two. But in either case, it is only through

VedAnta that one comes to know about Brahman. Thus Brahman-knowledge

is needed.

>

> This being the case, if there is only self-knowledge and no vEdAnta

( therefore no Brahman knowledge) how do you say self-ignorance is

removed?

 

Namaste,

 

As all this appearance didn't even happen at all there was nothing to

remove........We are characters in an imaginary dream, as soon as we

wake up the character and the dream disappear......They never

happened........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear SadAnanda,

>Hence jay - correct understanding of

>adviatic position is required. That is why it is called 'aparoksha

>j~naana - it is not mediate knowledge - for that one neads of the right

>frame of mind - hence sadhana chatushhTayam emphasized by Shankara.

 

He has used it to give the meaning of 'atha' in 'atha atO brahma-jignyAsA'. Sri

Shankara says sAdhana-chatushTaya is the pre-requisite for commencing

brahma-jignyAsA.

 

Please see adhyAsa-bhAshya of Sri ShankarAchArya -

 

"nityAnitya-vastu-vivEkaha, ihAmutra artha-bhOgavirAgaha,

Shama-damAdi-sAdhana-sampat, mumuksutvam cha. tEshu satsu prAg api

dharma-jignAsAyAha Urdhvam cha

shakyatE brahma jignAsitum jnAtum cha na viparyaye"

 

(Discrimination between enduring-nonenduring, detachment from enjoyment of

things of this world and the world after, possession of disciplines - peace,

selfcontrol etc., and desire for mOksha - if these are there, even before

dharma-jignyAsaa - enquiry into nature of dharma i.e, karma or after it, it is

possible to discuss and know Brahman.).

 

I would like to know where Sri Shankara emphasizes sAdhana-chatushTaya for

aparOksha jnAna.

 

I am trying to understand advaita better.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>

wrote:

>

> On Wed, 7 May 2003 bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>> >

> > I am still finding it difficult to reconcile these two mArgas.

How can

> > two different approaches can lead us to the same goal??

> namaste.

>

> I am extremely glad that this question is raised. I was

> hoping this question will come up, to draw more people

> into the discussion.

>

> 6. Ultimate realization cannot end up in duality. Anything

> ending up in duality is not the ultimate realization.

 

Namaste,

 

To supplement Murthy-garu's comments -

 

Bhagavata Purana is one of the great scriptures, and the 11th

section is known as Uddhava Gita, which is also sub-titled the Last

or Parting Message of Krishna to his devotee Uddhava.

 

[The great saint of Maharashtra, Ekanath - circa 1500 CE -

wrote a commentary on it (totalling nearly 15,000 verses) and is

revered as much as the Jnaneshvari of saint Jnaneshvara.]

 

To get the flavor of advaita bhakti, a study of this section

of the Purana, will enhance the study of the Gita. [sri Ramakrishna

called this Purana 'a sweet (like 'rasa-golla) of advaitic nuggets

soaked in the syrup of bhakti'!]

 

Here is one verse - 11:29:19

 

aya.n hi sarvakalpaanaa.n sadhriichiinaH mataH mama .

madbhaavaH sarvabhuuteshhu manovaakkaayavR^ittibhiH .. 19..

 

"This looking upon all beings as Myself in thought, word, and deed is

to my mind, the best of all methods of worship."

(tr. Sw. Madhavananda)

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

>As all this appearance didn't even happen at all there was nothing to

>remove........We are characters in an imaginary dream, as soon as we

>wake up the character and the dream disappear......They never

>happened........ONS...Tony.

 

If there is nothing to remove, then why bother about God realization?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> > On Wed, 7 May 2003 bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> >> >

> > > I am still finding it difficult to reconcile these two mArgas.

> How can

> > > two different approaches can lead us to the same goal??

 

 

Namaste,

 

Prof. V.K. has not been able to to join us yet, but as a

reminder for thiose who may have joined the list late, he had posted

a series of articles on this subject:

 

Advaita Bhakti thro. Contemplative Practice of Narayaniyam ( ABCPN )

 

Message nos. -

 

15182, 15207, 15231, 15250, 15282, 15299, 15312, 15313, 15328, 15361,

15372, 15393

 

 

 

It is also available in the Files section.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

praNAm Murthy prabhuji & all prabhus of this elite group

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for your kind clarification. I need some more insights to this

topic :

 

Prabhuji you wrote :

 

Bhakti, although it has its more visible appearance in

dvaita, graduates itself and reaches its highest state

in advaita. Bhakti ranges from idol worship to svAtnma-

tattvAnusandhAnam. All is bhakti. svAtma-tattvAnusandhAnam

is, or leads to, jnAnam.

> Is there any difference in bhakti - upAsana - karma

yOga-svasvarUpAnusadhAna approaches. Are all these approaches

ultimately lead to jnAna. If all these paths' destination is one and

the same i.e. jnAna, then why this categorisation... is it coz. of

adhikAra bhEda kindly clarify.

> Further you wrote :

 

Ultimate realization cannot end up in duality. Anything

ending up in duality is not the ultimate realization.

> Then prabhuji, we have to forcefully agree that dvaita dArshanikAs were

not realised souls from the advaita perspective!! or else they might

have misunderstood the *ultimate realisation* since they maintain

eternal separation/duality between jIvAtma & paramAtma even after

realisation.

> Finally, a doubt arises whether a bhakta through devotion towards his

ishtadEvata, ultimately led to apara brahman or lower or saguNa

brahman with name, form & all auspicious qualities. Moreover, it leads

to another question whether there are two brahmans one from the dvaitic

perspective that is saguNa brahman (apara brahman) & another from

advaitic perspective i.e. nirguNa brahman ( para brahman) which is

without prAna, mind & eternally changeless (avikrutam-unmodified). How

can a bhakta can realise this changeless nirguna brahman when he spent

all his life on worshipping his ishtadEvatA's mangala rUpa & kalyANa

guNas.

> From the above it is clear that apart from svasvarUpAnusandhAnam all

other paths lead to apara brahman or saguNa brahman with names, forms

with attributes which is according to Sri Shankara is due to the

conditioning adjunct created by Avidya. & we can conclude that from the

avaita perspective, realisation of saguNa brahman is mere a stepping

stone towards ultimate realisation of nirguNa brahman & saguNOpAsana is

for the convenience of aspirants who cannot rise to the level of the

absolutely featureless pure brahman.

> pls. correct me prabhuji if I am wrong.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

>

> I would like to know where Sri Shankara emphasizes sAdhana-chatushTaya

> for

> aparOksha jnAna.

>

> I am trying to understand advaita better.

>

>

 

Jay - sorry to say I do not think that you are really trying to

understand Advaita. I may be wrong but I can only conclude that you are

only trying to confuse the issues here.

 

If you are really interested in what shankara said - you have two

choices - either listen to those who have read his works or study your

self, those works to see the total picture of Advaita. Shankara has

written lot of other bhaashyaas and prakaraNa grathaas besides suutra

bhaashya. Just because he did not say in Brahmasuutra bhaashya do not

conclude that he did not say that anywhere else.

 

If you are really interested to learn Advaita - start with tatvabodha

and aatmabodha.

 

Shankara has written 'aparokshaanubhuuthi' -please study that if you

want to understand. Shree Murthy gaaaru can provide relevant info for

you if you are interested since it is one of his favorite texts.

 

Shree Sundar can give you many other references for you if you are

really interested to understand Advaita Vedanta.

 

Study the B. Sutra notes - not read it - How shravaNa is the means of

knowledge why mananam and nidhidhyaasanam come into picture for those

who do not have that sadhana chatushhtaya - I have given examples in

terms of light bulb.

 

If you are really interested in learning Advaita there are means

available -one cannot learn any subject, more so adhyaatma vidya, with

the attitude that it is wrong to start with and by flooding 'out of

contest' quotes from scriptures.

 

Your approach, as I see, is not to learn but to find fault with it. No

one can learn with that attitude.

 

There is no problem in finding fault with a theory, provided one

understands it fully.

 

If I am 'that' - 'that' which is aprameyam - it is not 'some thing' to

know where poroksha knowledge works - it is not an 'object' to know

where means are involved - it is something to realize what one already

is- that is only way Advaita can be possible. One cannot become Brahman

unless one already is- finite cannot become infinite. If Shankara did

not say in one bhaashya clearly to your satisfaction, I do not blame

shankara for that. B. sutra is needed only for those who want Nyaaya

aspect. But remember also -naishaa tarkene matiraapaneya - B.Suutra as

well as the bhaashya is not needed for sadhana at all. It is needed only

for those who whats to understand the samanvaya aspect. Neither Ramana

Maharshi nor Nisarga daata Majaraj - the two recent great advaitic

masters have studied B.Suutras for inquiry into Brahman -They did not

look for where Shankara explained aparoksaanubhuuti for them to realize

who they are. B.Suutras are only a secondary text compared to Vedanta.

You have quoted kena slokas to make your point- but I can also use the

same mantras to drive the point that it is not an objective knowledge

that is emphasized - it is neither known and not unknown - those who

know it do not know it - it is the eye of the eye, ear of ear- that what

mind cannot reach but that because of which mind has the capacity to

think - that which eyes cannot see but that because of which eyes have

the capacity to see and so on. - You may have your dwaitic

interpretation for these and may also be able to justify using your

samanvaya - but if I am not interested in your dwaitic interpretation of

the sloka-s - If I want to learn I will sit at your feet and learn from

you just as I did vishishhTadviatic interpretation sitting at the feet

of Sreeman S.M.S. Chari.

 

In response to your other mails - If I know myself already - the problem

is already solved and you would not have anymore questions. Since you

are asking, your understanding of your self is notional and the

scriptural vision of yourself is different - If you don’t see that - all

it means is the mind is preconceived and needs purification. That is

precisely what Shankara says as adhikaaritvam.

 

I have to stop here due to my time constraints.

 

As final remark if you are serious about learning Advaita there are ways

and means to learn - as Krishna points out and as you are familiar-

 

tad viddhi praNipaatena pariprashena sevayaa|

upadeshyanti te j~naanam j~naaninaH tatva darshinaH||

 

You know what is involved.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.